Environmental Audit Forest Audit Program 2014

Transcription

1 a Report Module 1: Harvesting and Closure Module 3: Regeneration and Finalisation Environmental Audit Forest Audit Program 2014 Service order number: February /01/04 Prepared for: Department of Environment and Primary Industries Prepared by URS Australia Pty Ltd AUSTRALIA

2 DOCUMENT PRODUCTION / APPROVAL RECORD Issue No. Name Signature Date Position Title Prepared by Jodie Mason 11 Feb 2015 Principal Consultant Checked by Harry Grynberg 11 Feb 2015 Senior Principal Chemical Engineer Approved by Harry Grynberg 11 Feb 2015 Senior Principal Chemical Engineer Report Name: Module 1: Harvesting and Closure Module 3: Regeneration and Finalisation Sub Title: Environmental Audit Forest Audit Program 2014 (Service order number ) DOCUMENT REVISION RECORD Issue No. Date Details of Revisions Aug 2014 Draft 02 5 Sept 2014 Revised draft Jan 2015 Final for comment Feb 2015 Final Report No /01/04 Status: Final Client Contact Details: Department of Environment and Primary Industries 8 Nicholson Street Melbourne Victoria Issued by: URS Australia Pty Ltd Level 6, 1 Southbank Boulevard Southbank VIC 3006 Australia T: F: Document copyright of URS Australia Pty Limited. No use of the contents, concepts, designs, drawings, specifications, plans etc. included in this report is permitted unless and until they are the subject of a written contract between URS Australia and the addressee of this report. URS Australia accepts no liability of any kind for any unauthorised use of the contents of this report and URS Australia reserves the right to seek compensation for any such unauthorised use. Document Delivery. URS Australia provides this document in either printed format, electronic format or both. URS Australia considers the printed version to be binding. The electronic format is provided for the client s convenience and URS Australia requests that the client ensures the integrity of this electronic information is maintained. Storage of this electronic information should at a minimum comply with the requirements of the Electronic Transactions Act 2000 (Cth). Cover photos: Department of Environment and Primary Industries /01/04 J:\MEL\ \5 Works\Final Report V1\Environmental Audit_11Feb2015_Report_ docx

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... VI 1 INTRODUCTION AUDIT SCOPE Scope of the audit project Segments of the environment audited Beneficial uses Audit criteria Elements excluded from scope Audit team members AUDIT APPROACH Audit overview Target selection Module 1 (Coupe Planning, Harvesting and Closure) Module 3 (Regeneration and Finalisation) Coupe assessment Audit workbooks Field assessments Environmental impact assessment Stakeholder consultation Reporting of audit findings AUDIT FINDINGS MODULE 1 (COUPE PLANNING, HARVESTING AND CLOSURE) Harvesting practices Level of compliance - summary Summary of findings by compliance element groups Summary of findings by environmental impact Detailed findings for Module 1 (Coupe Planning, Harvesting and Closure) Water and soils Biodiversity Operations Roading Infrastructure AUDIT FINDINGS MODULE 3 (REGENERATION AND FINALISATION) SUMMARY OF AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS Module 1 (Coupe planning, harvesting and closure) Recommendations for VicForests Recommendations for DEPI Forestry Services Recommendations for potential improvements to the regulatory framework /01/04 i

4 6.2 Module 3 (Regeneration and finalisation) Recommendations for VicForests Recommendations for potential improvements to the regulatory framework CONCLUSIONS Overall assessment of compliance Module 1 - VicForests Module 1 DEPI Forestry Services Module 3 VicForests Recommendations to DEPI Risks to beneficial uses Life, health and wellbeing of humans Life, health and wellbeing of other forms of life, including the protection of ecosystems and biodiversity Local amenity and aesthetic enjoyment GLOSSARY LIMITATIONS /01/04 ii

5 TABLES Table ES 1 Table ES 2 Summary of compliance levels and EIA risk ratings for VicForests and DEPI Forestry Services... viii Summary of audit details for EPA Victoria... xiv Table 3-1 Matrix used to assign priorities to recommendations Table 4-1 Level of compliance with the audit criteria for VicForests and DEPI Forestry Services Table 4-2 Table 4-3 Compliance scores and EIA risk ratings for VicForests coupes for each compliance element group Compliance scores and EIA risk ratings for DEPI Forestry Services coupes for each compliance element group Table 4-4 Summary of compliance findings for the Water and soils compliance element group - VicForests Table 4-5 Table 4-6 Table 4-7 Summary of compliance findings for the Water and soils compliance element group - DEPI Forestry Services Summary of compliance findings for the Biodiversity compliance element group VicForests32 Summary of compliance findings for the Biodiversity compliance element group DEPI Forestry Services Table 4-8 Summary of compliance findings for the Operations compliance element - VicForests Table 4-9 Summary of compliance findings for the Operations compliance element DEPI Forestry Services Table 4-10 Summary of compliance findings for the Roading compliance element group - VicForests Table 4-11 Table 4-12 Table 4-13 Summary of compliance findings for the Roading compliance element group DEPI Forestry Services Summary of compliance findings for the Infrastructure compliance element group - VicForests Summary of compliance findings for the Infrastructure compliance element group DEPI Forestry Services Table 5-1 Summary of compliance findings for the Regeneration Compliance Element - VicForests FIGURES Figure 1-1 The 14 Forest Management Areas established in Victoria (Source: DEPI)... 3 Figure 4-1 Compliance levels and EIA risk ratings for identified non-compliances for each compliance element PLATES Plate 4-1 Typical topography, soil disturbance and harvest intensity of the audited coupes for a) VicForests; and b) DEPI Forestry Services /01/04 iii

6 APPENDICES Appendix A Forest Audit Program Manual Appendix B Module 1 - Coupe Planning, Harvesting and Closure Appendix C Module 3 Regeneration and Finalisation Appendix D Summary list of audited coupes Appendix E Bibliography Appendix F Auditee comments on factual matters in the draft audit report /01/04 iv

7 ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviation ARR Description Absolute Risk Rating Code Code of Practice for Timber Production 2007 DELWP DEPI or the Department EIA EPA EVC FAP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning Department of Environment and Primary Industries Environmental Impact Assessment Environment Protection Authority Ecological Vegetation Class Forest Audit Program FFG Act Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 FMA FMP GMZ HSE km m Management Procedures mm SMZ SPZ TRP VBA WUP Forest Management Area Forest Management Plan General Management Zone Health, Safety and Environment kilometre metre Management Procedures for timber harvesting, roading and regeneration in Victoria s State forests 2009, revised 2012 millimetre Special Management Zone Special Protection Zone Timber Release Plan Victorian Biodiversity Atlas Wood Utilisation Plan /01/04 v

8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction The Department of Environment and Primary Industries 1 (DEPI or the Department) engaged Jodie Mason (the auditor) of URS Australia in June 2014 to undertake an environmental audit of timber harvesting in Victoria s State forests. This was commissioned under the DEPI Forest Audit Program (FAP). The objectives of the audit were to: 1 Assess and report on compliance with environmental prescriptions and associated environmental performance of: (a) Timber harvesting activities undertaken in the financial year on public land, with relevant environmental legislation, regulations and government policies governing forest management (in accordance with FAP Module 1); (b) Regeneration activities on coupes nominated by VicForests as adequately regenerated in the financial year with relevant environmental legislation, regulations and government policies governing forest management (in accordance with FAP Module 3); and 2 Review and report of the effectiveness of the relevant environmental regulatory instruments in the context of the scope addressed by Modules 1 and 3 of the FAP. DEPI reviewed the FAP in 2013 and released a new manual and associated series of 3 guiding modules in January 2014 that target different aspects of the timber harvesting lifecycle. This was the first audit conducted using the revised 2014 FAP method. Due to differences in the audit criteria, it must be noted that direct comparisons between compliance scores presented in this report and those reported in previous FAP audit reports may not be possible. At the time of this audit project, timber harvesting operations in Victoria's State forests were managed by two separate entities. VicForests is responsible for planning and managing commercial timber harvesting, the sale of timber products and the regeneration of harvested areas on State forest in the east of the State; and DEPI Forestry Services was responsible for these activities in other parts of the State (predominantly western Victoria). It is noted that the Victorian Government transferred the management responsibilities of DEPI Forestry Services to VicForests in November 2014 to more clearly separate the forestry governance and regulatory role from management of commercial operations. This new management arrangement may have implications for how this report is reviewed, but it is understood that VicForests is now the primary regulated entity, and may respond to this report on behalf of the former DEPI Forestry Services. 1 Please note that the Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI) was restructured on 1 January 2015 under the incoming Victorian Labor Government. The services associated with environmental regulation of timber harvesting are now provided by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP). This report was commissioned under DEPI but has been received by the regulatory officials within DELWP /01/04 vi

9 In commissioning the audit project, DEPI instructed the auditor to limit the audit to timber harvesting operations that had been conducted in three Forest Management Areas (FMAs), namely the Central, Dandenong and Bendigo FMAs. The following numbers of operations were assessed: 18 coupes managed by VicForests from within the Central and Dandenong FMAs; 6 coupes managed by DEPI Forestry Services in the Bendigo FMA; and 10 coupes that had been managed and regenerated by VicForests from the Central and Dandenong FMAs. The total number of timber harvesting operations assessed in the audit was therefore 34 coupes. The sampling of target coupes was conducted by the auditor from a list provided by DEPI of 228 harvesting coupes and 48 regeneration coupes that were relevant to the selected FMAs. The auditor used a random risk-based methodology that considered attributes present at each coupe including slope, soil erosion hazard, silviculture, and proximity to protected values. The method used is outlined in detail in the report. The selected targets included four coupes that occur in water supply catchments managed by Melbourne Water. The audit commenced in late June 2014 with initial document review and field inspections undertaken over a three week period. Of the coupes audited under Module 1 (Coupe Planning, Harvesting and Closure), harvesting was complete on half and the remaining coupes were partially harvested. The audit was based on document review, site inspections and discussions with VicForests and DEPI Forestry Services personnel. Site inspections included observations and measurements of key parameters; assessment of soil characteristics; and photographs were taken of site conditions to aid in assessment. Compliance or non-compliance was noted for defined audit criteria within five compliance element groups. Where an instance of non-compliance was identified, the actual or potential environmental impact was determined in accordance with the FAP Manual to provide an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) risk rating of Severe, Major, Moderate, Minor, Negligible or No impact. DEPI arranged for three community observation days, where interested stakeholders could observe the audit and interact with the audit team and DEPI representatives. The auditor has included a series of audit recommendations where she was of the opinion that: 1 Documented procedures or practices do not adequately address the intent of the Code or other mandatory requirements and the recommendation can add value in continuing to improve environmental outcomes; or 2 Clarification of, or a change to, a prescription is required to reduce the risk of harm to the environment /01/04 vii

10 Audit findings Module 1 (Coupe planning, harvesting and closure) Please note that due to differences in types of forest, landscapes and harvesting intensity at audited coupes managed by VicForests and those managed by DEPI Forestry Services, it is not appropriate to draw direct comparisons between the reported levels of compliance or environmental impact of coupes managed by VicForests and those managed by DEPI Forestry Services. Table ES 1 summarises audit compliance levels and EIA risk ratings for VicForest and DEPI Forestry Services. Table ES 1 Summary of compliance levels and EIA risk ratings for VicForests and DEPI Forestry Services AGENCY EIA RISK RATINGS Compliances Noncompliances Compliance score (%) No impact Negligible Minor Moderate Major Severe VicForests 1, % DEPI Forestry Services % TOTAL 1, % No non-compliances with an EIA risk rating of Severe were identified. The audit method for Module 1 considered five broad compliance element groups: Operations Infrastructure Biodiversity Water and soils Roading Operations Operations had the highest level of overall compliance with 98% for VicForests and 100% for DEPI Forestry Services. This group of audit criteria addressed requirements such as wet weather and seasonal restrictions; and protection of exclusion areas and boundaries. An isolated instance of use of a landing in wet conditions (Minor EIA); and an incident of a bulldozer having cleared understorey vegetation outside a coupe boundary (Minor EIA) were identified as non-compliances for VicForests coupes; otherwise the harvesting activities were found to have been managed appropriately /01/04 viii

11 Infrastructure The Infrastructure compliance element group addressed coupe landings, snig tracks and boundary tracks. VicForests coupes had a compliance score of 96%. Infrastructure was assessed as being generally minimised and rehabilitated appropriately, and a number of landings on adjacent coupes had been reused. A small number of exceptions included isolated instances of failure to remove topsoil before using a landing (Moderate EIA); inadequate rehabilitation of a landing (Moderate EIA); discharge of sediment into a waterway and a buffer from snig tracks (Moderate and Minor EIAs); and inadequate drainage of sections of snig tracks and boundary tracks, mainly on steeper slopes (Negligible and No impact EIAs). DEPI Forestry Services coupes scored 96%, being generally compliant with the few relevant Infrastructure requirements, with the exception of the inappropriate siting of a track within a drainage depression (Negligible EIA). Biodiversity VicForests coupes scored 97% compliance with the applicable criteria for the Biodiversity compliance element group (biodiversity planning, forest health, rainforest, old growth forest and threatened species). The auditor observed that areas of rainforest had been identified and excluded from harvesting and machinery disturbance in a conservative manner; threatened species records were managed in accordance with documented requirements; and VicForests was collaborating with DEPI to detect Myrtle Rust. Areas of non-compliance included systemic weaknesses identified with pathogen risk assessment (Moderate EIAs) and instances of hygiene controls to prevent the spread of weeds not having been implemented (Negligible EIAs). DEPI Forestry Services coupes were in compliance with the few applicable Biodiversity Conservation requirements; with the compliance score influenced by one systemic issue of failure to survey for the presence of weeds before harvesting (No impact EIAs). The compliance score was therefore reduced to 60%. Despite the low incidence of non-compliance, the audit includes recommendations for potential improvement in both work practices and the regulatory framework to reduce the risk of environmental harm, in the areas of threatened species detection and pathogen risk assessment. Water and soils The Water and soils compliance element group addressed classification and exclusion of waterways from harvesting activities; slope and special water catchment restrictions; and management of in-coupe machinery maintenance areas and waste. This group of audit criteria had the lowest of VicForests compliance scores at 86%, due to a combination of a relatively low number of applicable audit criteria and systemic non-compliances including those related to waste disposal by contractors (Minor EIAs); and the lack of assessment of risk of mass soil movement on steep slopes (Minor EIAs) /01/04 ix

12 DEPI Forestry Services coupes had a compliance rate of 65% for the Water and soils group, influenced largely by two systemic non-compliances relating to waste disposal by licensees (Minor EIAs); and not having undertaken water quality risk assessments (Negligible EIAs). Good practice was noted in the conservative classification of drainage lines; prohibiting excavation of erosive subsoils; and protection of soil close to active erosion points. Roading The Roading compliance element group addressed the planning, design, construction, maintenance and temporary and permanent closure of roads used during timber harvesting. Roading was generally found to be managed appropriately by VicForests, with a compliance rate of 87%. Good practices observed included some reuse of temporary road alignments, minimisation of waterway crossings in most cases, avoidance of construction in steep areas, and an efficient approach to road closure applications and traffic management planning. Culverts at three coupes were assessed as constituting a barrier to the passage of fish (Major and Minor EIAs). A number of systemic issues affected multiple coupes, including failure by VicForests to assess the risk of transmission of Phytophthora (Phytophthora cinnamomi) through quarry materials (Minor EIAs); issues relating to closure of temporary roads (Negligible and No impact EIAs); and erosion and sedimentation of road surfaces and unstable fill disposal areas and embankments (Moderate and Minor EIAs). The auditor also considered that the field assessment process for detecting significant flora on VicForests road alignments was not adequate to comply with requirements and manage risks (Minor EIAs), although no evidence of actual impact was evident during the audit. DEPI Forestry Services coupes had a compliance rate of 14% for Roading, influenced by the low number of requirements relevant to their operations, as they have not undertaken any road construction or maintenance activities. A small number of non-compliances with relatively high risk ratings was identified with traffic control and road closure processes (Major EIAs). Audit findings - Module 3 (Regeneration and finalisation) The audit found that adequate regeneration of local eucalypt species had occurred at all of the 10 audited coupes. No non-compliances with Severe, Major or Moderate EIA risk ratings were identified. Three non-compliances with Minor EIA risk ratings were identified where it could not be demonstrated that VicForests had considered spatial distribution of the original species in regeneration plans. Five non-compliances with EIA risk ratings of Negligible were identified for not fully complying with seed provenance requirements; and instances of no undertaking weed assessment and control. A further nine non-compliances were identified for VicForests not having assessed rehabilitation of infrastructure drainage after ground-based regeneration activities, resulting in Negligible EIA risk ratings; and incomplete records of regeneration details, for which environmental impact assessment was not considered applicable /01/04 x

13 Risk of harm to the environment The environmental impact (observed or potential) was assessed and scored for all 132 noncompliances detected during the audit. Impact scores of Severe and Major are considered to be especially significant. No Severe environmental impact scores were recorded for either managing authority. One Major environmental impact scores was recorded for VicForests, being a single instance of a waterway crossing on a permanent road presenting a barrier to the passage of fish. While it was a single instance, two other similar instances having Moderate EIA risk ratings were also identified for VicForests coupes. In addition to finding non-compliances with the current requirements, this audit report includes a recommendation to DEPI to review the appropriateness of current regulatory requirements regarding types of stream crossing structures in relation to facilitating movement of fish through crossings. Five Major environmental impact scores were recorded for DEPI Forestry Services for failure to adequately close roads or control traffic when falling trees adjacent to minor forest roads. The auditor assessed the potential impact of this issue as Major as it represents a safety risk to the users of adjacent minor forest roads. The auditor notes that DEPI Forestry Services has since initiated management actions and a revised harvesting approach to address this issue; and this audit report includes a recommendation to continue to implement changes to ensure compliance. The audit did not identify any imminent environmental hazards or unacceptable risks to the beneficial uses listed in Section 2.3 of this report. The assessment of imminent environmental hazards was based on site observations and EIA risk rating assessments of identified noncompliances, using the experience and expertise of the audit team members. The assessment of risk to the listed beneficial uses is based on non-compliances identified and their respective EIA risk ratings at the coupe level and the auditor s judgement, backed by the experience and expertise of the audit team members, as to the significance of audit findings at a landscape level. Recommendations from this audit Six (6) recommendations were made for VicForests, relating to: Review of application of its process for assessing soil erosion hazard and water quality risk assessment; Development and implementation of disease and health risk assessments; Expansion of search areas for threatened species values pending review of modelled data; Documentation and implementation of procedures to improve assessment for environmentally sensitive values on road alignments; Communication of road maintenance requirements amongst relevant staff; and Documentation and implementation of a procedure for planning that the regeneration outcome reflects the species mix and spatial distribution of the forest prior to harvest /01/04 xi

14 Five (5) recommendations were made for DEPI Forestry Services, relating to: Provision of specific guidance to forest product licensees regarding felling trees within and adjacent to filters and removal of logs from filters; Development and implementation of disease and health risk assessments; Expansion of search areas for threatened species values pending review of modelled data; Documentation of procedures for threatened species detection; and Further development of traffic management and road closure procedures. Thirteen (13) recommendations were made for DEPI in its role as the environmental regulator of timber harvesting conducted on public land. These relate to: Provision of guidance on the location of soil assessments in relation to the coupe and on selecting the appropriate soil horizon to use in determining water quality risk; Defining steep slopes in the regulatory documentation; Development, in consultation with VicForests, of a robust process for the reporting of threatened species information that has been detected by VicForests and requires zoning amendment; Reviewing the threatened flora and fauna models developed in association with the Permitted Clearing of Native Vegetation: Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines policy to assess applicability for forestry applications and provision to VicForests and DEPI Forestry Services; Updating of the Central Highlands Forest Management Plan (FMP) to include all current Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG) listed taxa and threatened taxa on the DEPI Advisory List. This should include an update of the conservation status of all taxa in Appendix J and K, and an update of the management prescriptions to align conservation efforts with current conservation significance status; Amendment of the Code and/or Management Procedures to include a requirement to assess the risk of spread of pathogens, which would expand on the current Management Procedure requirement that the spread of pathogens (e.g. Armillaria of Phytophthora) must be minimised; Review of management prescriptions for the protection of threatened flora within riparian zones to better manage potential impacts associated with construction of waterway crossings; Documentation to clarify whether Management Procedures Sections 1.6.1, 2.3.6, and apply to temporary roads that are constructed for timber harvesting operations, or apply only to permanent roads; Review of the mandatory requirements for road crossings of waterways and provide better guidance relating to movement of fish through various types of crossing structures; Revision to eliminate inconsistencies between Management Procedures Sections and and the Road Maintenance Agreement 2014 between the DEPI and VicForests; /01/04 xii

15 Review of Management Procedures to remove the requirement to utilise topsoil stockpiles to rehabilitate batter slopes. This recommendation is based on technical references relating to low volume road engineering indicating other means of stabilisation are effective and that topsoil placed on slopes steeper than 40 degrees may be subject to sliver fill failure. Topsoil may be more effectively used in rehabilitating recontoured temporary road alignments after harvest; Review and revise Code prescriptions relating to suitability of silvicultural methods for regeneration of understorey species to clarify the intended purpose; and also develop and better document standards and methods for the regeneration and assessment of regeneration of understorey species; and Modify the scope of Module 3 (Regeneration and Finalisation) audits to include capacity to check whether a backlog of un-regenerated or under-regenerated coupes is developing. The auditor notes that this recommendation is aligned with a recommendation made by the Victorian Auditor General in his 2013 report 2. Table ES 2 contains audit summary information as required by EPA Victoria. 2 Victorian Auditor-General s Office, 2013, Managing Victoria s native forest timber resources /01/04 xiii

16 Table ES 2 Summary of audit details for EPA Victoria SUMMARY INFORMATION REQUIRED EPA file reference no. CARMS: ; Service order number: Auditor Jodie Mason Auditor term of appointment 15 July July 2017 Name of person requesting audit Relationship to premises/location Hon. Ryan Smith, Minister for Environment and Climate Change Portfolio Minister for the environmental regulator (Department of Environment and Primary Industries) Date of request 10 / 06 / 2014 Date EPA notified of audit 15 / 06 / 2014 Completion date of the audit 11 / 02 / 2015 Reason for Audit Description of activity EPA Region Dominant Lot on plan Additional Lot on plan(s) Site / Premises name Building / complex sub-unit No Street / Lot Lower No. Street / Lot Upper No. Street Name Street type (road, court, etc) Street suffix (North, South etc) Suburb Postcode GIS Coordinate of Site centroid Members and categories of support team Outcome of the audit Further work or requirements Groundwater segment Surrounding land use Commissioned under DEPI Forest Audit Program Timber harvesting and forest regeneration in State forest in Victoria Gippsland, North West and North East NA State forest NA State forest NA - State Forest areas within the Central, Dandenong and Bendigo Forest Management Areas NA State forest NA State forest NA State forest NA State forest NA State forest NA State forest NA State forest NA State forest NA - 34 coupes throughout the Central, Dandenong and Bendigo Forest Management Areas Tuesday Phelan (Forest science and regulation) Peter Gannon (Terrestrial Ecology) Audit report with recommendations Six (6) recommendations were made for VicForests, relating to review of application of its process for assessing soil erosion hazard and water quality risk assessment; development and implementation of disease and health risk assessments; expansion of search areas for threatened species values pending review of modelled data; documentation and implementation of procedures to improve assessment for environmentally sensitive values on road alignments; communication of road maintenance requirements amongst relevant staff; and documentation and implementation of a procedure for planning that the regeneration outcome reflects the species mix and spatial distribution of the forest prior to harvest. Five (5) recommendations were made for DEPI Forestry Services, relating to development and implementation of disease and health risk assessments; expansion of search areas for threatened species values pending review of modelled data; documentation of procedures for threatened species detection; and further development of traffic management and road closure procedures. Thirteen (13) recommendations were made for DEPI, relating to improvements to the regulatory framework. NA Includes State forest, State park, national park, other Crown land and private property, variously managed for multiple uses including timber harvesting, recreation, biodiversity conservation, water storage and management and agriculture /01/04 xiv

17 1 INTRODUCTION This report documents the methodology and findings of an environmental audit of timber harvesting and associated forest regeneration in Victoria s State forests. The Timber Harvesting Compliance Unit within the Department of Environment and Primary Industries 3 (DEPI or the Department) engaged URS Australia Pty Ltd (URS) to undertake this audit under the DEPI Forest Audit Program (FAP). Jodie Mason (the auditor) of URS led the audit in her capacity as an environmental auditor appointed pursuant to the Environment Protection Act DEPI is the environmental regulator responsible for setting environmental standards and ensuring timber harvesting operations comply with the legislative and regulatory requirements. The FAP forms an important component to facilitate independent (external) monitoring of timber harvesting compliance. DEPI finalised a review of the FAP in January 2014 and produced a series of three audit modules intended to assess the environmental impacts of timber harvesting conducted in State forests. Each of the FAP modules address different regulatory requirements for timber harvesting operations: Module 1 covers coupe planning, harvesting and closure; Module 2 covers harvest area limits; and Module 3 covers the regeneration and rehabilitation of harvested forest. The objectives of the audit project specified by DEPI were to: 1 Assess and report on compliance with environmental prescriptions and associated environmental performance of: i. timber harvesting activities undertaken in the financial year on public land, with relevant environmental legislation, regulations and government policies governing forest management (in accordance with FAP Module 1); ii. regeneration activities on coupes nominated by VicForests as adequately regenerated in the financial year with relevant environmental legislation, regulations and government policies governing forest management (in accordance with FAP Module 3); and 2 Review and report of the effectiveness of the relevant environmental regulatory instruments in the context of the scope addressed by Modules 1 and 3 of the FAP. The FAP documents were provided to the auditor by DEPI. The three procedural documents relevant to this audit are the FAP Manual; FAP Module 1 Coupe Planning, Harvesting and Closure; and FAP Module 3 Regeneration and Finalisation (refer to Appendices A, B and C respectively of this report). Copies of the FAP documents, including the audit workbooks used by the audit team, are available from DEPI on request by ing DEPI at fpd.reports@depi.vic.gov.au. 3 Please note that the Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI) was restructured on 1 January 2015 under the incoming Victorian Labor Government. The services associated with environmental regulation of timber harvesting are now provided by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP). This report was commissioned under DEPI but has been received by the regulatory officials within DELWP /01/04 1

18 Management of timber harvesting operations in Victoria At the time of this audit project, timber harvesting operations in Victoria's State forests were managed by two separate entities: VicForests is responsible for planning and managing commercial timber harvesting, the sale of timber products and the regeneration of harvested areas on State forest in the east of the State; and DEPI Forestry Services was responsible for management of commercial timber harvesting, sale of products and regeneration of harvested areas in other parts of the State (predominantly in the west). It is noted that the Victorian Government transferred the management responsibilities of DEPI Forestry Services to VicForests in November 2014 to more clearly separate the forestry governance and regulatory role from management of commercial operations. This new management arrangement may have implications for how this report is reviewed, but it is understood that VicForests is now the primary regulated entity, and may respond to this report on behalf of the former DEPI Forestry Services. All commercial timber harvesting in Victoria s State forests is governed by the legislative requirements outlined in the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004, including compliance with the Code of Practice for Timber Production 2007 (the Code). The Code is the key regulatory instrument applicable to commercial timber harvesting and is established under Part 5 of the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act It prescribes the minimum standards to which timber harvesting and subsequent regeneration activities in Victoria must comply. The Code requires that Forest Management Plans are developed for State forests in all Forest Management Areas (FMAs) in Victoria and these plans may contain additional regulatory rules and guidance (see Figure 1-1). DEPI has recently completed a project to consolidate the relevant rules and regulations that apply to timber harvesting conducted on public land, which has resulted in changes to the regulatory framework and the publication of a new version of the Code of Practice (28 October 2014) The Management Procedures for timber harvesting operations and associated activities in Victoria s State forests (Management Procedures), developed by DEPI, provide additional guidance to VicForests and DEPI Forestry Services in meeting the requirements of the Code, as well as further environmental standards and operational requirements. The Management Procedures apply to all commercial timber harvesting and related roading and forest regeneration activities undertaken by VicForests and DEPI Forestry Services. Fire salvage harvesting prescriptions may also apply to provide supplementary prescriptions for salvage harvesting operations in wildfire-affected areas. These typically apply for a period of time following the fire event to provide higher levels of protection and minimise any further negative impacts on an already disturbed environment /01/04 2

19 Figure 1-1 The 14 Forest Management Areas established in Victoria (Source: DEPI) VicForests and DEPI Forestry Services have developed internal procedural documents to assist their staff, contractors and forest produce licence holders in implementing regulatory requirements, including Utilisation Procedures (VicForests) and Timber Harvesting Operator s Procedures (DEPI Forestry Services). Benefits of the FAP FAP audit projects are intended to benefit DEPI as the environmental regulator, the Victorian forestry industry, catchment managers and the community by providing an independent and objective assessment of the environmental performance of timber harvesting operations and the effectiveness of the regulatory framework, and assist VicForests and DEPI Forestry Services in their objectives of continual improvement. Public reporting of findings helps to inform the public on the management of State forests and contribute to transparency. The environmental regulator uses the results of the FAP and other compliance monitoring activities to identify issues and potential improvements to the regulatory framework to achieve appropriate environmental outcomes from timber harvesting operations /01/04 3

20 2 AUDIT SCOPE This section outlines the scope of the audit project, the segment and elements of the environment audited, the beneficial uses considered, audit criteria used, excluded elements, and members of the audit team. 2.1 Scope of the audit project The scope of the audit project was defined by DEPI in conducting the procurement process to commission URS Australia to undertake the required work. The scope of the audit was as follows: Review coupe harvesting, closure and relevant regeneration of timber harvesting undertaken in the Central, Dandenong and Bendigo FMAs. The required method was as per the FAP Manual and Workbooks, which were provided by DEPI in January The auditor was required to outline any departure from the method provided by DEPI. Assessable compliance elements were outlined in FAP Module 1 - Workbooks 1B (Water quality, river health and soil protection); 1C (Biodiversity conservation); 1D (Operational provisions); 1E (Roading); 1F (Coupe infrastructure); and also FAP Module 3 Workbook 3A (Assessment of regeneration coupes). Potential audit targets for 2014 included: VicForests and DEPI Forestry Services managed timber harvesting coupes in specified FMAs that were subject to harvesting in 2012/13 (71 coupes); VicForests and DEPI timber harvesting coupes in specified FMAs that are scheduled to be or are currently being harvested in 2013/14 (161 coupes); and Previously harvested timber harvesting coupes in specified FMAs (covering multiple harvesting seasons) that were successfully regenerated by VicForests (as nominated by VicForests)(48 coupes). Complete desktop and field assessment were required for 34 timber harvesting operations which were broken down into the following categories: 18 coupes assessing Module 1 requirements selected from the Central and Dandenong FMAs (VicForests operations). Of these, at least two coupes were required to be located within Melbourne Water Catchment Areas. 10 coupes assessing Module 3 requirements selected from the Central and Dandenong FMAs (VicForests operations). 6 coupes assessing Module 1 requirements selected from the Bendigo FMA (DEPI Forestry Services operations). Target coupes were to be selected by the auditor from the list of potential audit targets supplied by DEPI /01/04 4

21 The work that was subsequently carried out by the audit team is summarised as follows: Review of potential target coupe list provided by DEPI; Selection of the 34 target coupes for audit using the risk-based approach outlined in the FAP Manual; Office-based review and field assessments, accompanied by auditees, to review the management of the selected coupes; and Preparation of an environmental audit report (this report), which considers auditees comments on factual matters contained in a draft of this report. 2.2 Segments of the environment audited The segment of the environment covered by this audit is defined as that portion of Victoria in which timber is harvested from public land including adjacent rivers, streams and communities directly affected by that harvesting. The following elements of the environment (as defined in the Environment Protection Act 1970) have been considered in conducting the audit: Land; Surface water; Groundwater; Vegetation; Aesthetics; Wildlife; and Fish. The FAP Manual also includes climate as an element relevant to the audit program, however the auditor did not consider it relevant to this audit. 2.3 Beneficial uses In assessing the risk of harm or detriment to the environment, the following beneficial uses are considered broadly relevant to the audit: Life, health and wellbeing of humans; Life, health and wellbeing of other forms of life, including the protection of ecosystems and biodiversity; and Local amenity and aesthetic enjoyment /01/04 5

22 2.4 Audit criteria The audit criteria used in this audit are contained in the FAP Module Workbooks, which outline the relevant compliance element groups: Module 1: Harvesting and closure Workbook 1B: Water quality, river health and soil protection ( Water and soils ) Waterways Buffers Filters Slopes Camp maintenance, fuel storage and waste disposal Water Catchments Chemical contamination Workbook 1C: Biodiversity conservation ( Biodiversity ) Planning and management Forest health Threatened species Rainforest Old growth Workbook 1D: Operational provisions (includes weather-related and seasonal restrictions, boundaries and excluded areas) ( Operations ); Workbook 1E: Roading ( Roading ) General Road planning Road design Road construction Road maintenance Road closure Workbook 1F: Coupe Infrastructure ( Infrastructure ) General Log landings and dumps Snig and forwarding tracks Boundary trails /01/04 6

23 Module 3: Regeneration and finalisation Workbook 3B: Audit criteria for regeneration coupes The workbooks contain criteria selected from the relevant regulatory documents (i.e. Code, Management Procedures, Forest Management Plans (FMPs), etc) Elements excluded from scope The FAP Manual lists elements that are specifically excluded from the scope of the audit: The development and amendments of the Allocation Order, Timber Release Plans (TRPs) and Wood Utilisation Plans (WUPs); Development of Forest Management Plans and broader forest management planning processes. Note that this exclusion does not relate to the assessment of compliance against relevant prescriptions contained in such planning documents (e.g. those relating to forest operational planning, roading, harvesting and regeneration practices); Compliance with rules, regulations or guidelines that relate to Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) matters; Timber harvesting practices undertaken on private (freehold) land (e.g. private plantation forestry); Roading activities conducted on public land that are not associated with timber production; Silvicultural practices conducted on public land that are not associated with commercial timber production (i.e. fire recovery silviculture and ecological thinning); Land use decisions and associated forest industry policy ; Assessing planning, management, impact or potential impact of timber harvesting on aboriginal heritage values in State forest; Practices associated with the production and collection of domestic forest produce (including domestic firewood) across all land tenures; Recreational activities undertaken on public land; Livestock grazing activities undertaken on public land; Apiary activities undertaken on public land; and Fire suppression and management practices undertaken on public land (e.g. fuel reduction burning and habitat enhancement burning). This does not include exclusion of use and outcomes of any post-harvest regeneration burning (which falls within the scope of the FAP) /01/04 7

24 2.4.2 Audit team members The following personnel were involved in the audit: Jodie Mason (Lead Auditor, Principal Consultant, URS)* Peter Gannon (Principal Ecologist, Ecocentric)*; Tuesday Phelan (Principal Consultant Forester)*; Andrew Morton (Vice President, URS Forestry); Con Psiroukis (Forestry Consultant, URS): and Dr Harry Grynberg (Senior Principal URS). *Undertook field work /01/04 8

25 3 AUDIT APPROACH 3.1 Audit overview Initial document review and field inspections were conducted over a three week period from 30 June to 17 July 2014, with document review and reporting continuing into the weeks and months following. The auditor held a short briefing meeting with VicForests and DEPI Forestry Services auditees at the start of the field program to introduce the audit team, outline the audit process and confirm logistical arrangements. The audit team completed field inspections of two to three coupes each day and at the completion of each assessment reviewed the findings with operational staff on site. A debriefing session with auditees was also held at the conclusion of the field program in each of the relevant FMAs, to provide a preliminary assessment of compliance for each coupe and to identify any issues where further evidence or clarification was required. 3.2 Target selection The FAP Manual outlines the risk-based process to be used for selecting audit targets Module 1 (Coupe Planning, Harvesting and Closure) The Department compiled and provided to the auditor a Master Coupe List of 138 coupes from the Central and Dandenong FMAs and 90 coupes from the Bendigo FMA, which represented all potential target coupes that underwent harvesting during the 2012/13 and 2013/14 financial years (excluding domestic firewood coupes). The auditor then selected the required number of coupes (24) using a risk-based approach that considered the following risk factors to determine an Absolute Risk Rating (ARR) for each coupe: Slope (S); Soil erosion hazard (SE); Silvicultural system (SS); Special land protection requirements (PR); and Compliance Themes (CT). The ARR is determined by the following formula: ARR (coupe) = S x SE + SS + PR + Σ(CT) where Σ means the sum of Compliance Themes are intended to allow for an adjustment of the focus of audits year to year by increasing the likelihood of selecting coupes that are relevant to the chosen Compliance Theme. The Department advised the auditor that as the geographic range for the audit had already been limited, no Compliance Theme would be applied for this audit /01/04 9

26 Once ARRs were assigned to all coupes, coupes were allocated accordingly into High, Moderate and Low risk categories. The 18 Central and Dandenong FMA coupes were selected at random from the Master Coupe List to fit the following risk distribution prescribed by the FAP Manual: 60% from the High risk group; 25% from the Moderate risk group; and 15% from the Low risk group. The risk based selection processes selected four coupes within Melbourne Water catchments so no further adjustment was required. Due to the relatively flat terrain and low variability in risk profile among coupes from the Bendigo FMA, only Moderate and Low risk groups were identified. Five coupes were selected from the Moderate risk group; and one from the Low risk group Module 3 (Regeneration and Finalisation) The Department provided a Master Coupe List of 48 coupes within the Central and Dandenong FMAs nominated by VicForests in October 2013 as being adequately regenerated. The FAP Manual required audit targets be stratified by reported stocking levels, then randomly selected to reflect the proportion of coupes with a reported stocking of greater than 75%; and less than or equal to 75%. Audit targets were selected to also proportionally represent the forest types and silvicultural systems used. The auditor then selected the required number of coupes (10). All selected coupes were larger than 10 ha in size. 3.3 Coupe assessment The auditing of selected coupes was undertaken during June and July 2014 (winter), using a combination of document review, site inspections and interviews with relevant personnel. Representatives of the auditee organisations accompanied the audit team on all Module 1 coupes during site inspections; and representatives accompanied the audit team to the Module 3 coupes, but did not join the audit team within the coupes in all cases. Copies of Forest Coupe Plans and the original coupes files for each audited coupe were provided by the relevant managing agency, VicForests or DEPI Forestry Services, for the duration of the audit. Of the 24 coupes assessed under Module 1, there was no harvesting active during the audit. At the time of the audit, harvesting had been completed on 12 of the coupes; and 12 coupes were partially harvested Audit workbooks The audit team completed FAP workbooks for each coupe according to the evidence observed and collected by the audit team. In the rare event that the audit team found an audit criterion provided in a workbook that did not adequately reflect the relevant prescription, the regulatory prescription was used. The auditor has provided feedback to DEPI regarding this issue with the objective of continual improvement of the audit toolbox /01/04 10